HandoutPDF - Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle - CNRS

Mini-workshop on Nominalizations
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
December 14 2009
Outline
On Tensed Nominalizations
Jacqueline Lecarme
Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle
CNRS-Université Paris 7
lecarme@llf.cnrs.fr
http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Lecarme/
Within a constructional approach of word formation, categorization and argument structure
(Marantz 1996, Borer 2003), the question arises as to how much syntactic structure
(if any) nominalizations share with verbal environment. Here, I focus on the role of nominal
tense and event structure in the licensing of arguments in Somali nominalizations. I
provide evidence for the fact that the argument structure of nominalizations comes from
a structure internal to the nominal itself. A full explanation of the Somali data hopefully
will not be a particular statement about Somali, but rather a deeper understanding of the
‘right domains’ in the structure of nominal expressions.
1 Parallels between verbal / nominal domains
There are many suggested and suggestive parallels between the verbal / nominal domains.
Such parallels have been discussed in philosophy, cognitive semantics (Jackendoff 1983),
formal semantics (Carlson 1982, Krifka 1992), syntax (Abney 1987, Pesesky and Torrego
2001, Hiraiwa 2005).
Semantic side: VPs name ‘properties of eventualities’ (events and states), not single events.
Events have the same logical type as individual entities, i.e. . Quantifying over
the event variable (‘sentence determination’) yields ‘definite’ or ‘indefinite’ descriptions of
events (Higginbotham 1983, Kratzer 1988).
Syntactic side: there is a deictic reference mechanism ‘above’ the description of events and
objects. C, like D, turns a proposition to something that can act as a argument.
Verbal domain: vP has a full argument (event) structure. Voice introduces the external
argument (Kratzer 1996) and interacts with (transitive) v to determine whether accusative
case is available for a vP internal constituent.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 2
Nominal domain: nP is an intransitive structure. Yet nominal predicates preserve the
active / stative distinction (be a hero vs. be a person, cf. Chomsky 1970).
Nominals and clauses share ‘structural meanings’ carried by functional categories or features
which do not determine a phase, such as [plural] and Tense.
1.1 Verbal [plural]
Number can refer to entities or events denoted by nominal or verbal elements; it derives
from the ability to perceive something as a token. In natural language, we find both
nominal and verbal number (e.g. Ojeda 1998, Matthewson 2000).
In most Afroasiatic languages, verbal plurality is realized by morphological processes similar
to those found in nominals, e.g. reduplication (Newman 1990, Fassi Fehri 2003).
• No singular available, cf. pluralia tantum: deg-deg ‘to hurry’, bad-baadi ‘to look after’,
guur-guur ‘to crawl’, gil-gil ‘to shake’, etc.
• Shift of meaning between singular and plural: dóon ‘to want’, doon-dóon ‘to search
(for)’; már ‘to pass’, mar-már ‘to travel (about)’.
• Plural nominalizations: event nouns suffixed with -id, -in-, -is, -sho exhibit ‘verbal
pluralization’:
(1) a. qor-íd (f) ‘witing’ → qor-qor-íd (f) ‘writings’
b. dil-íd (f) ‘killing’ → dil-dil-íd (f) ‘killings’
c. cel-ín (f) ‘repetition’→ cel-cel-ín (f) ‘repetitions’
d. qaba-shó (f) ‘arrest’ → qab-qabasho (f)‘arrests’
• Pluractionality:
(2) a. Shálay baa boolíis-ku sóo qabtáy 26 ká míd ah
Yesterday C/F police-defM[nom] dir. catch.past.3s 26 from one be
burcád-dii
gang-defF
Yesterday, the police caught 26 gangsters’ (nondistributive)
b. Shálay baa boolíis-ku sóo qab-qabtáy 26 ká míd
Yesterday C/F police-defM[nom] dir. catch-catch.past.3s 26 from one
ah burcád-dii
be gang-defF
Yesterday, the police caught 26 gangsters’ (distributive)

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 3
(2a) there is exactly one catching event → (2a) expresses a pure collective reading, where
the policemen jointly caught 26 gangsters.
(2b) there is more than one (non-identical, spatiotemporally separated) catching events →
(2b) expresses a kind of distribution reading, which implies that we can find subsets of
policemen and subsets of gangsters.
→ [plural] does not always originate within a DP: the source of distributive interpretation
is the verbal [plural] feature (not the DP’s plural inflection).
Semantic pluralization: [plural] ascends from the v head and functions as an operator that
pluralizes the vP predicate (cf.. Link’s (1983) cross-categorial *plural operator).
1.2 Nominal Tense (and aspect)
‘Nominal tense’ is a well-attested morphological phenomenon (See Lecarme 1996, 1999,
2004, 2008 and the references cited there. Other manifestations in the absence of specific
nominal tense morphology: non-demonstrative uses of that in English; presence of two
semantically different types of definite articles in German, see Roehrs 2006, Schwartz 2009).
I assume that DP has the structure (3), where D is formally parallel to C, n*P is parallel
to Voice and introduces the external ‘possessor’ argument, n is a light noun, and nP, n*P
and DP define 3 syntactic domains for tense interpretation.
(3) DP
D
T n*P
(Poss)
APPL-n nP
n Root
Assuming that syntax and semantics run in parallel from bottom to top, 3 (sets of) times
are potentially involved in the temporal interpretation of noun phrases:
(4) the predication time (i.e. the times at which a property like ‘president’ is asserted
to hold of an individual),
Madaxweyní-hii hore (waa imáanayaa)
president-detM.past before F is-coming

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 4
The former president (is coming)
(5) the time of the genitive/possessive relation,
(Waxaan ku bárayaa) afá-daydii
hore
Expl.F.1S 2S introduce wife-detF.1S.detF.past before
(I am introducing you) my ex-wife
(6) the time of (existence of) the individual (or event).
a. Madaxweyní-hii wúu dhintay
president-defM.past F3MS die.past
The president died
b. Aníg-ii waan iská tagay
Me-defM.past F.1S
As for me, I left
refl.from go
c. Yáa mas’úul ká ah burburín-tii Soomaaliya?
who responsible from is destruction-defF.past Somalia
Who is responsible for the destruction of Somalia?
Like English before, horé ‘before’ express temporal precedence IFF it is bound by a PAST
tense (spatial otherwise).
• In (4) horé applies to the predicate → the predicate is true of invividuals that once
had the property ‘president’,
• In (5) horé applies to the possession relation: the nominal can be used to refer to
someone who was formerly ‘my wife’ and is ‘my wife’ no longer (= perfective or ‘outer
aspect’) =‘the one who was my wife’ (and still is).
→ cf. Chomsky (1970): there is an argument for taking the form John’s wife to
underlie John has a wife, rather than conversely. ‘Functional category verbs’ inserted
into v nodes (have, be, do, perhaps light verbs) are precisely what is lacking in
nominals.
• The strong pronouns have the same distribution of ordinary DPs. As pronouns
contain no ‘descriptive’ material, (6b) illustrates a clear case of temporal location of
an individual.
(6c) is a ‘tensed nominalization’: the nominal itself refers to a past event of destruction.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 5
1.3 Event structure
(Davidsonian) events are particular things, and they are denotations of - among other
categories - verbs. Ordinary sentences implicitly mark reference to an event. ‘Simple
event’ nouns (Grimshaw 1990) such as trip or war denote sets of events as well.
(7) a. Dagáal-kii Ogaadeenya
war-defM.past Ogaden
The Ogaden War (book title)
b. wéerar-kii 11-kii Setembar
attack-defM.past 11-defM.past September
the 11 September attack
In (7a) (a book title), nominal [past] locates the event temporally, independently of any
‘discourse’ context or situation. In (7b), the effect of a nominal [past] is to constrain the
denotation of ‘September 11’ to a set of past times.
→ Nominals then are much similar to clauses with regard to temporal interpretation (tense
and event structure). Tense makes it possible to chain together the various elements of the
interpretation of noun phrases.
→ Question: what do sentences/CPs have that nominalizations/DPs do not?
2 Argument structure in Nominalizations
In a constructional approach such as Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1996, 1997), the
syntax (thus LF) provides the only way the mind has to represent compositional meanings
(i.e., constructed by the computational system).
Every word is the result of a syntactic derivation interpreted with the use of the Encyclopedia,
where non-compositional meanings of linguistic expressions are stored. Phases
determine the cyclic domains of semantic and phonological interpretation (Chomsky 2008,
Marvin 2002).
→ (cf. Chomsky 1970) N, V are not syntactic categories - need not have any essential
distributional property (X’ theory). N and V must be distinguished by some internal
property, i.e. some feature(s): something becomes nominal when it merges with D.
→ Destruction and growth (as opposed to -ing gerunds) are never verbs at any stage of the
derivation (cf. Chomsky 1970). Roots like DESTROY and GROW are category neutral.
When the root is placed in a nominal environment, the result is a ‘nominalization’.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 6
2.1 ‘Agentive’ nominalizations
Chomsky (1970): transitive grow involves [+cause], a lexical feature.
Marantz (1996, 1997): Differences between sentential / nominal environment is syntactic,
not lexical. Sentential/verbal environments allow syntactically projected agents, nominal
environments do not.
John’s (destruction of the city) is not a projected agent. The root DESTROY implies an
agent much the way it implies a time of destruction (yesterday’s destruction of the city).
→ Problem: If nominalizations embed no verbal context, what is the relation between their
implied (or ‘inherent’) agent and the syntactically projected agent in a verbal environment?
Why destruction, but not growth, seems to retain its agent?
2.2 The ‘Possessor’ argument
Nominals do not assign case to their selected objects, yet functional structure is responsible
for interpreting ‘external arguments’ within nominals. Gentitive constructions crosslinguistically
involve a ‘strong’ definite artice (cf. *a book of John vs. a book of John’s).
In somali, the ‘possessor’ argument (a multi-role argument) is structurally dependent of a
(tensed) definite article (D+T). The prenominal ‘possessor’ must be an argument, not a
modifier (8b):
(8) a. búug-ga Maryan / Máryan búug-geeda
book-detM Maryan / Maryan book-detM.Poss3F
Maryan’s book
b. búug-ga xisáab-ta / *xisáab-ta búug-geeda
book-detM mathematics-detF / mathematics-detF book-deM.Poss3F
the book of mathematics
Indefinite constructions do not license ‘possessor’ arguments. The ‘possessive’ relation
must be explicitly expressed in a ‘reduced’ relative clause:
(9) a. *búug Maryan → búug [Máryan léedahay]
book Maryan → book Maryan is-possessing
a book that Maryan is possessing
b. *ínan Maryan → ínan [Máryan dhalatay]
son Maryan → son Maryan bore
a son that Maryan bore

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 7
In Lecarme (2004), I establish a parallel between possessive constructions and double object
constructions (cf. Larson 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Pylkkänen 2007). An ‘extra’ layer of
semantic predication is created by adding an external argument to the nP predicate (see
(3)): APPL takes nP as its complement in a complex predicate construction → transitive
nominalizations do have a projected external argument, but this argument is not projected
by Voice.
→ If ‘possessors’ in nominalizations can be interpreted as agents even in the absence of a
Voice head, where does the agentive interpretation come from?
2.3 Somali nominalizations
As in many languages within and outside Afroasiatic (e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002), roots or
stems create verbs as well as nouns 1 .
Somali nominalizations are never ambiguous. Roots and themes (causative, middle, passive,
frequentative...) all have corresponding nominal forms.
(10) a. joog- (intr.) ‘stay, wait, remain’
jóog (m), jóog-id (f) ‘stay, act of standing’
b. joogsa- (intr.)‘come to a halt, end’
joogsa-shó ‘stopping onself’
c. jooji- (tr.) ‘bring to a halt, stop’
joojín (f) ‘halt, pause’
d. joogjoog-(intr.) ‘stay a while, hang around’
joogjóogid (f) ‘(act/fact of) hanging around’
2.4 Causative formation
Proposed analysis: agentive nominalizations involve CAUSE, but CAUSE has no verbal
status.
• CAUSE is a semantic relation between 2 events (Parsons 1990). CAUSE, like Tense,
is not a category-determining morpheme, nor a phase head.
1 Note on the ‘nouniness’ of the Somali lexicon: As verbs have no infinitive form, Somali dictionaries
(e.g. Yaasiin C. Keenadiid’s Qaamuska Af-Soomaliga (1976)) traditionally have no entries for verbs, but
use nominal forms instead. A large subset of the verbal stems can be argued to be denominal (Hale &
Keyser 1993, 1997’s ‘unergative verbs’, e.g. cayáar ‘play’, hées ‘sing’, féker ‘think’, hádal ‘talk’). Many
roots, such as dagáal ‘attack’ jóog ‘stay’, jír ‘existence/exist, are ‘ambicategorial’: there is no evidence to
decide whether nominal or verbal forms are basic.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 8
• CAUSE heads introduce event or eventualities syntactically: a root merged with
CAUSE has the semantics of an event modifier.
• CAUSE describes a semantic operation; whether it may attach to a particular stem
or root is a matter of semantic compatibility, not syntactic selection. CAUSE selects
for roots, VPs or phases (xPs) (cf. Pylkkänen 2007).
In Somali, causative verb stems involve merger of CAUSE to the root, not to the unaccusative
verb (vP): the causative -i suffix can affect the vowel or consonant of the root
before the point of the derivation when the xP is sent to PF → it must be attached within
the xP phase, i.e. before the point of the derivation when the theme becomes a noun or a
verb (see 12).
(11) a. √ XANUUN ‘pain’ + i → xanuuji- (palatalization: see Bendjaballah 1998)
xanúun (m) ‘pain’
xanuun- (intr.) ‘be in pain’ (both stative)
xanuujín (f) ‘act of inflicting a pain’
xanúuji (tr.) ‘hurt’
b. √ JAB ‘break’ + i → jebi-(vowel assimilation)
jáb (m) ‘fragment’
jab- (intr.) ‘break’
jabíd (f) ‘break’(names an event of change of state)
jébi (tr.) ‘break’
jébis (m), jebín (f) ‘act of breaking’
c. √ JOOG ‘stay’ + i → jooji- (palatalisation)
jóog (m) ‘stay’
jooji- (tr.) ‘bring to a stop’
joojín (f) / jóojis (m) ‘act of stopping s.o/th’
(12) Root-selecting CAUSE: n/vP
n/vROOT CAUSE
Denominal verbs (agentive activity verbs derived from nouns) involve merger of CAUSE to
a phase head (nP). The -i suffix in (13) is attached above the domain of the phonological
rule → palatalization does not occur.
(13) a. tifíq (f) ‘drop’ → tifqi- ‘cause to drip’ (tr.)

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 9
b. fáraq (m) ‘fringe’ → farqi- ‘put a fringe on’
(14) nP-selecting CAUSE:
2.5 CAUSE and agentivity
nP CAUSE
n ROOT
→ What is needed in a transitive nominalization is a CAUSE head, not a Voice head.
• Causative uses have a wide range of meanings. ‘Special meanings’ are realized with
causative morphology, even though they do not have any agentive (or obviously
causative) meaning (e.g. kac- ‘rise’; kici- ‘rouse’; kicínta códka ‘the accentuation of
the vowel’).
• CAUSE is semantically independent from Voice (in Finnish, Japanese, Somali...
causative heads are independent of the Voice head as well).
• CAUSE is a relation between two events; a theta-role (e.g. ‘agent’) is a relation between
an individual and an event (cf. Pylkkänen 2007). The semantics of DESTROY
requires an external causer, but an ‘external causer’ is not a projected argument.
→ Agent interpretation is dependent on CAUSE, but not vice versa: agent arguments then
must be merged higher than CAUSE.
→ if we combine this with the assumption that the external argument is introduced by
APPL (see above), we get a syntactic tree where the predicate CAUSE first merges with
the root describing the caused event; APPL then the relates a ‘possessor’ to the event
introduced by CAUSE.
(15)
Poss-Agent
APPL
n
CAUSE Root

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 10
The structural source of the external argument is APPL, agentive interpretation (external
causer) is dependent on CAUSE. The causative meaning applies first, so that the external
argument can then be related to the causing (rather than the caused) event.
→ If agent arguments in nominalizations were introduced by Voice, they would have to
occur in the ‘possessor’ argument position. In Somali (at least), this is not the case:
(16) a. Diyaarín-ta cáshar-ka (ee Máryan) waa wanaagsán tahay
preparation-defF lecture-defM (and Maryan) F/C good
The preparation of the lecture (by Mary) is good
f-is
b. cáshar-ka diyaarín-tiisa
(ee Máryan)
lecture-defM preparation-defF.Poss3MS (and Maryan)
the lecture’s preparation (by Mary)
c. *Máryan diyaarín-teeda (ee) cáshar-ka
Maryan preparation-defF.poss3F (and) lecture-defM
Maryan’s preparation of the lecture
d. Máryan cashar-diyaarín-teeda (waa wanaagsán tahay)
Maryan lecture-preparation-defF.Poss3F (F/C good
Maryan’s (way of) preparing lectures (is good)
f-is
Incorporating the theme argument (cáshar) forces the agent in the ‘possessor’ position, but
the structure is not ‘eventive’ in an episodic sense (no existential reading of the incorporated
noun) → cashar-diyaarínta is an ‘action type’ - a kind of preparation, with possibly
spatiotemporally discontinuous manifestations (e.g., denoting the set of Maryan’s lecture
notes) - or may have a result interpretation.
2.6 ‘Deverbal’ agentive nouns
English -er nominals are not necessarily agentive (Rappaport Hovav & Levin 1992 a. o.)
The ‘deverbal’ agentive nominal analysis (i.e., root and verbalizing head combine and are
subsequently nominalized by n) has problems as well, since the requirement that an object
be present is not met.
→ Somali agentive -é formation does not involve an affix creating a verb, but involves a
possibly null, uncategorized CAUSE affix. CAUSE introduces event semantics within the
nP, but the event involved is only a ‘potential’ (not existentially bound) event.
(17) a. ‘Lexical’ causatives - overt CAUSE suffix (-i):
arrín (f) ‘problem, affair’
arrimi- ‘make a decision’ (tr.)

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 11
arrimi-(y)é (m) ‘director’
fáal (m) ‘omen’
falli- ‘take omens, tell s.o. fortune’
falli-(y)é (m) ‘fortune teller’
xóog (m) ‘strength’
xooji- ‘strengthen’ (tr.)
xooji-(y)é (m) ‘reinforcer, amplifier’
búrbur (m) ‘fragment’
burburi- ‘destroy’ (tr.)
burburi-(y)é (m) ‘destroyer, bulldozer’
duul- ‘fly’ (intr.)
duuli- ‘cause to fly, pilot’ (tr.)
duuli-(y)é (m) ‘pilot (of airplane)’
xiríir (m) ‘relationship’
xiriiri- ‘link together’ (tr.)
xiriiri-(y)é (m) ‘conjunction (grammar)’
b. ‘Lexical’ causatives - ‘inherent’ CAUSE suffix: (action verbs/nouns)
fál (m) ‘action’
fal- ‘do, act’
falé (m) ‘one who acts, doer; subject (grammar)’
fur- ‘open’ (tr.)
furé (m) ‘opener, key’
díl (m) ‘murder’
dil- ‘kill’ (tr.)
dil-é (m) ‘killer’
bar- ‘teach’
bar-é (m) ‘teacher’

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 12
(18)
RootP n
é
Root CAUSE
D
At the point of the derivation where n is merged, no ‘verbalizing head’ is involved in the
structure. The ‘agentive’ nominal is interpreted as an ‘external causer’, but no agent is
projected.
→ There are denominal verb formation (the class of denominal verbs laugh, cough, cry
(Halle & Keyser 1993) = ‘verbalizations’, but are there (true) ‘nominalizations’?
Conclusions
Nominals (and nominalizations) involve an articulated event structure, but the relevant
structure fundamentally does not have a ‘verbalizing’ function (cf. Alexiadou 1999, contra
Borer 2003).
→ Event/argument structure does not always require the projection of a verbal constituent.
Nominals (and nominalizations) introduce events semantics and their own event modifiers.
→ Tense and event structure can be associated with nominals. There is no evidence for
the fact that the argument structure of nominalizations comes from a structure external
to the nominal itself (cf. Chomsky 1970).
3 References
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987, The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral
Dissertation, MIT.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1999. On the syntax of nominalization and possession: Remarks on
patterns of ergativity. Habititation, University of Postdam.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina. 1998. La palatalisation en somali. Linguistique africaine, 21, 5-52.
Bohnemeyer, J. 2002. The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya. Lincom Europa,.
Munich.
Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. Endo-skeletal Explanations: Syntactic Projections
and the Lexicon, in M. Polinsky and J. Moore (eds.) The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic
Theory. Chicago : CSLI and. University of Chicago Press.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 13
Carlson, Gregory. 1982. Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical
logic 11, 14: 145-181.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalizations. In Studies on Semantics in Generative
Grammar, The Hague: Mouton 1972, 11-61.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kem Hale: A life in Language, ed.
Michael Kenstovicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays
in honor of Jean-Roger Verganud, ed. Carlos Otero, Robert Freidin, and Maria-Luisa
Zubizarreta, 133-166. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2003. Verbal plurality, transitivity, and causativity. In Lecarme,
Jacqueline (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II, 151-185.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. Argument structure and the lexical expression
of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The View from
Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Hornor of Sylvain Bromberger. 111-176, Cambidge,
MA: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi and Rolf Noyer. 1998. Mixed nominalizations, object shift, and short verb
movement in English. Proceedings of NELS 28, University of Massachusetts-Amherst:
GLSA. ames T.
Higginbotham, James. 1983. The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative
to Situation Semantics. Journal of Philosophy 80: 100-127.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture.
Doctoral dissertstion, MIT.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1988. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In M. Krifka (ed.)
Generiticy in Natural Language. Tubingen.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck
and Laurie Ann Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-137. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2007. On the Plurality of Verbs. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow
and M. Schäfer (eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin.
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal
constitution. In: Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci (eds.) Lexical Matters. CSLI/ University
of Chicago Press.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 14
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1996. Tense in the nominal system: The Somali DP, in J. Lecarme,
J. Lowenstamm & U. Shlonsky (eds), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, Selected papers
from the Second Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis 1994, pp. 159-178.
The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999. Nominal tense and tense theory. In Francic Corblin, Carmen
Dobrovie-Sorin and Jean-Marie Marandin (eds), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and
Semantics 2, Selected papers from CSSP 1997, The Hague: Thesus.
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2003. Nominal tense and evidentiality. In Jacqueline Guéron and
Liliane Tasmovski (eds), Tense and Point of View. Presses de l’Université de Nanterre.
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2004. Tense in nominals. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline
Lecarme (eds), The Syntax of Time, pages 441-475. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2008. Tense and Modality in Nominals. In Jacqueline Guéron and
Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), Time and Modality, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, Springer.
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: a lattice theoretic
approach. In R. Bauerle, Ch. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and
Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1996. ‘Cat’ as a Phrasal Idiom. Ms, MIT.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try the morphological analysis in the
privacy of your own lexicon, In Alexis Dimitriadis et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 21th
Pemn Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 2:4, 201-225.
Marantz, Alec. 2008. Phases and words. In Sook-Hee Choe (ed) Phases in the theory of
Grammar, 191-222. Seoul: Dong In.
Marvin, Tatiana. 2002. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2000. On Distributivity and Pluractionality. In B. Jackson and T.
Matthews (eds) Proceedings of SALT 10. Ithaca/N.Y., CLC Publications.
Newman, Paul. 1990. Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Foris, Dordrecht.
Ojeda, Almerindo. 1998. The semantics of collectives and distributives in Papago. Natural
Language Semantics 6: 245-270.

Jacqueline Lecarme
On tensed nominalizations 15
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study of Subatimic Semantics.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C: Causes and Consequences, in M.
Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2007. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. [2002 Doctoral
dissertation, MIT]
Prior, Arthur. 1968. Change in events and change in things. Papers on Time and Tense,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1992. -er nominals: Implications for a theory
of argument structure. In Tim Stowell and Eric Wehrli (eds), SYntax and Semantics 26:
Syntax and the Lexicon, Academic Press, New York, 127-153.
Roehrs, Dorian. 2009. Demonstratives and definite articles as nominal auxiliaries. John
Benjamins.
Schwartz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Doctoral Dissertation,
UMass Amherst.